Maybe he was attempting to do what Will always alludes to as the only acceptable manner of policing thugs with guns:
Hand it over to be vouchered for safekeeping before peaceably turning himself in to face his other charges.
Man Wheels Suitcase With AR-15 Down Street - Arrested
- Thread starter Madmallard
- Start date
Maybe he was attempting to do what Will always alludes to as the only acceptable manner of policing thugs with guns:
Hand it over to be vouchered for safekeeping before peaceably turning himself in to face his other charges.
Marine Cpl
.577 Tyrannosaur.
They didn't need to violate his rights to stop him when they saw him. There is a myriad of other charges they could have gotten him on.
That's like saying me saying that I'm glad they passed laws that allowed police to search every bag carried by a citizen on the street if he would have secured it properly in his suitcase and wasn't acting suspicious.
Yes. Yes. Search me on the street! Search my vehicle. If it catches one guy, it's worth it!
Marine Cpl
.577 Tyrannosaur.
There are other charges for that. It shouldn't be safe act charges on criminal possession of a weapon. Menacing is one. Attempted murder is another after his confession. Resisting arrest is another because he ran. Many others.
What you describe is fantasy land and you're smart enough to know that (unlike some other boobs here).
The situation you are arguing revolves around someone who left a party to retrieve a rifle with the express purpose of committing a mass-murder. He admitted this to the cops. His weapon of choice was exposed in public on his way to commit his crime. He is very likely a prohibited person (owing to the fact that he's being prosecuted federally). I'd look up the arrest but there's really no need to here, it's all pretty obvious.
So while I do applaud you for your amazingly strong attempt to remain free from hypocrisy, your belief system is flawed in that it requires you to defend a literal piece of shit.
Our Constitution was created to protect the law abiding and provide a moral, just authority when punishing perps; it was never meant to actually protect them. There is a difference between those two descriptions. Lawyers created what we have today where otherwise good people sympathize and/or empathize criminals. Sleazy lawyers. Don't be a sleazy lawyer.
You may not sympathize with this particular perp, but by constantly drawing "slippery slope" parallels between court tested, essential law enforcement and cockamamie schemes to disarm law-abiding citizens, you are in fact empathizing with his situation.
The situation you are arguing revolves around someone who left a party to retrieve a rifle with the express purpose of committing a mass-murder. He admitted this to the cops. His weapon of choice was exposed in public on his way to commit his crime. He is very likely a prohibited person (owing to the fact that he's being prosecuted federally). I'd look up the arrest but there's really no need to here, it's all pretty obvious.
So while I do applaud you for your amazingly strong attempt to remain free from hypocrisy, your belief system is flawed in that it requires you to defend a literal piece of shit.
Our Constitution was created to protect the law abiding and provide a moral, just authority when punishing perps; it was never meant to actually protect them. There is a difference between those two descriptions. Lawyers created what we have today where otherwise good people sympathize and/or empathize criminals. Sleazy lawyers. Don't be a sleazy lawyer.
You may not sympathize with this particular perp, but by constantly drawing "slippery slope" parallels between court tested, essential law enforcement and cockamamie schemes to disarm law-abiding citizens, you are in fact empathizing with his situation.
Clarification: he is in fact being charged Federally due to his status as a prohibited person.
I take no issue with felons losing their right to own and bear firearms, especially violent, convicted robbers. As previously stated, the Constitution was never meant to secure the rights of those who operate outside of societies norms. It was meant to protect those who do.
I take no issue with felons losing their right to own and bear firearms, especially violent, convicted robbers. As previously stated, the Constitution was never meant to secure the rights of those who operate outside of societies norms. It was meant to protect those who do.
Marine Cpl
.577 Tyrannosaur.
The Constitution was created to protect free men. If he was deemed a danger to society, he shouldn't be free. That's my issue.
Your MO is "Fuck it! He's a perp. Who cares if his rights were violated?" Would you care if he was a legal concealed carrier with a license and the police charged him for the gun anyway in contrast to the Constitution and the penal law just because he was just as crazy as that guy and admitted to wanting to settle a score? How about an off duty cop walking to his neighbors house with his gun in his hand with intent to kill everyone in that house because his wife got fucked by his neighbor? Would you care if he got charged with criminal possession of a weapon even though he has a badge that is exempted? Or would you rather he get charged for the crimes he actually committed?
Marine Cpl
.577 Tyrannosaur.
Those people should remain locked up or released on probation with no rights if they are deemed to be safe among society. Once free including being free from the sentence of probation, they should have all their rights restored. Not just some.
You defend a flawed system.
When the intent is to use a legal weapon illegally, you bet I’m ok with criminal possession of a weapon. The name of the crime is exactly what they are doing: possessing a weapon with criminal intent.
People who study the penal law are taught exactly that regarding this section. A previously legal item can become illegal when the intent is there. Similarly, any item can be a weapon for this charge if used as such.
If I throw my stapler at you, I’d be charged with Assault 2 and CPW because I used my stapler (legally owned and possessed) to assault you. If I attempted to do so, it would be the same charge.
Cops who commit crimes with their guns are charged with CPW by the way. Even on duty.
Marine Cpl
.577 Tyrannosaur.
You'd be charged with assault or some other crime. Criminal possession of a weapon wouldn't apply to you due to the exemptions place in 265.20 that would apply to you. That's why when a cop makes a really bad decision do to ego and it's caught on camera, he gets murder or manslaughter charges. There are no criminal possession of a weapon charges.
Last edited:
False. Anytime a crime is charge that was committed with a weapon, the weapon is charged as CPW. Come on man. Don’t argue it.
SuffolkArms
.40 S&W
Meh, I won't even carry a standard soft gun case from my car to my apartment. Should have broken his AR in half and stuck it in a tennis racket case like I do with my registered Ares SCR.
Marine Cpl
.577 Tyrannosaur.
Come on man, now you’re just patronizing me.
I get it, I’m a cop not a lawyer. So anything I say is bunk to you. But you’re neither. You have zero VTL, CPL or Penal Law experience.
So again...
A previously legal weapon (ie, legal due to the exemptions you just posted), immediately becomes illegal when used illegally.
An on-duty NYC police officer who uses his department-issued 9mm criminally will be charged with CPW. Period. End of story.
If you shoot someone over a parking spot with your legally own and carried handgun, you’re going to be charged with CPW. Period, end of story.
You need to take a few law courses, seriously. You do this all the time.
Marine Cpl
.577 Tyrannosaur.
So the penal law is ignored is what you are saying because it's text clearly gives you and I as a permit holder an exemption. I don't need a law degree to be able to read it.
If it's common practice to ignore and apply whatever portions they deem fit at the time while ignoring others, and duping the jury, that's a problem.
No patronizing here. Just stating the law as it is written. I'm not against you personally. I'm against the corrupt, unconstitutional system.
Last edited:
You don’t know what you’re reading and how it is applied in the real world, that’s about as best as I can say it.
Furthermore, to bolster your belief you are intentionally ignoring what I keep saying:
“...when used illegally.”
The exemptions you keep pointing to are for lawful use.
There’s no orher way to say it. I don’t make up hypotheticals like you do.
Believe me or not, it really doesn’t matter. I’m telling you how the law really works. You’re trying to prove me wrong with a layman’s textbook reading.
Furthermore, to bolster your belief you are intentionally ignoring what I keep saying:
“...when used illegally.”
The exemptions you keep pointing to are for lawful use.
There’s no orher way to say it. I don’t make up hypotheticals like you do.
Believe me or not, it really doesn’t matter. I’m telling you how the law really works. You’re trying to prove me wrong with a layman’s textbook reading.
Marine Cpl
.577 Tyrannosaur.
The law doesn't say that though unless I'm missing a clause under the exemptions that says so. If there is such a clause, then I'm wrong.
If there isn't and people get charged on that all the time in the city who are duly licensed or badged, then it goes to show how fucked up the legal system is.
Marine Cpl
.577 Tyrannosaur.
And by the way, I'm getting my information form Penal law 265 itself.
Marine Cpl
.577 Tyrannosaur.
Haha. Nortatoga. You are so transparent. Liking wrong information again. Haha.
Sorry Will but @Airborneguy knows what he is talking about, and as usual you don't!
Marine Cpl
.577 Tyrannosaur.
Read the penal law then get back to me. Don't take it personal because I destroy your arguments on the Constitution. If you are right on another unrelated post, I will say that you are right. I wouldn't go around liking every post that was against you even if you were right. You're a flawed man.
No, it just proves that you’re not the legal scholar you think you are. Not trying to be a dick, but the explanation that fits your belief is not how the law works.
Also, contrary to 7 years of parsing each and every word since the Safe Act was pass, not every specific legal pathway is spelled out in the penal law. Precedent built on court decisions guides our legal system as much if not more so.
You do realize that the judicial branch is equal to the others right?
Marine Cpl
.577 Tyrannosaur.
I'm not trying to be a dick either. I don't take these things personally. It's just a forum on the internet. If I'm wrong, I'd like supporting evidence so that I can learn and after seeing it will admit that I'm wrong. But after reading Penal Law 265 a few times within the last hour, I see no such evidence.
Marine Cpl
.577 Tyrannosaur.
And those decisions are supposed to be made by what's written in the penal law itself. Any ruling contrary to it where a judge decides that he's going to disregard the laws passed and rule like a king, is a bad ruling and goes against everything this system was supposed to be built on.
Kind of like when some judge ruled that restrictions are constitutional as per the Second Amendment and penal law 400 when neither say anything about restrictions.
What's the point of these laws if a judge can just make his own?
Last edited:
That’s not what’s happening here though. When some particular person is entitled to an exemption under the laws as written in NY, they enjoy that exemption only while conducting themselves lawfully. Unlawful acts negate the exemption.
I’ve given narcan to the dead before lol
Do you think it could help here?
@thewheels
.308 Win
fify
That's not the case, sorry.
Honest question:
@Willjr75 , how far do you take this angle that there should never be a charge for the gun at all?
If I got mad over one of our discussions, chased you down and shot you in front of your locker at the transit facility, do you really believe that my gun should only be vouchered for safekeeping until I finish my stint?
@Willjr75 , how far do you take this angle that there should never be a charge for the gun at all?
If I got mad over one of our discussions, chased you down and shot you in front of your locker at the transit facility, do you really believe that my gun should only be vouchered for safekeeping until I finish my stint?